Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T23:05:32.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Gender Differences on the Evaluation of Promotional Emails

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2005

MARISSA V. PHILLIP  and
RAJNEESH SURI
MARISSA V. PHILLIP
Affiliation:
Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau, [email protected]
RAJNEESH SURI
Affiliation:
Drexel University, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Advertisers are recognizing the internet's potential for helping firms directly communicate with consumers using media rich emails. Though the efficiency of such emails cannot be denied, their effectiveness needs to be assessed. It is argued that components of promotional emails are likely to be evaluated differently by males and females. The results from a survey suggest that women and men differ in their evaluation of information content and the visual presentation used in emails. Compared to men, women were also more concerned about privacy and preferred to use the media to build social contacts. Implications for using promotional emails are discussed.

Type
INSIGHTS INTO ONLINE MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS
Information
Journal of Advertising Research , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 360 - 368
Copyright
© Copyright © 1960-2004, The ARF

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barone, M.J., K.M. Palan, and P.W. Miniard. “Brand Usage and Gender as Moderators of the Potential Deception Associated with Partial Comparative Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 33, 1 (2004): 19–28.Google Scholar
Briones, M. “Online Retailers Seek Ways to Close Shopping Gender Gap.” Marketing News, September 14, 1998.Google Scholar
Brunel, F.F., and M.R. Nelson. “Message Order Effects and Gender Differences in Advertising Persuasion.” Journal of Advertising Research 43, 5 (2003): 330–41.Google Scholar
Casey, M.B., E.P. Nuttall, and E. Pezaris. “Spatial-Mechanical Reasoning Skills Versus Mathematics Self-Confidence as Mediators of Gender Differences on Mathematics Subtests Using Cross-National Gender-Based Items.” Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 32, 1 (2001): 28–58.Google Scholar
Darley, W.K., and R.E. Smith. “Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response.” Journal of Advertising 24, 1 (1995): 41–56.Google Scholar
Day, G.S. “Organizing for Interactivity.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 12, 1 (1998): 47–53.Google Scholar
DeBare, I. “Women Lining Up to Explore Online,” 1996: [URL: http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/women/wconline.html].
Dittmar, H. “Meanings of Material Possessions as Reflections of Identity: Gender and Social-Material Position.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6, 6 (1991): 165–86.Google Scholar
Eroglu, S.A., K.A. Machleit, and L.M. Davis. “Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing: A Conceptual Model and Implications.” Journal of Business Research 54, 2 (2001): 177–84.Google Scholar
Femina. “@Cybergirl Electronic Survey,” 1996: [URL: http://www.femina.com/].
Harper, D. “The Rise of E-mail Marketing.” Industrial Distribution 91, 7 (2002): 56.Google Scholar
Herring, S. “Gender and Democracy in Computer Mediated Communication.” Electronic Journal of Communication 3 (1993): 2.Google Scholar
Herring, S. “Gender Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications,” 2000: [URL: http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html].
Kehoe, C., J. Pitkow, and K. Morton. “Eighth WWW User Survey,” 1997: [URL: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1997-04].
Maheswaran, D., D.M. Mackie, and S. Chaiken. “Brand Name as a Heuristic Cue: The Effects of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 1, 4 (1992): 317–36.Google Scholar
Meyers-Levy, J. “Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation.” In Cognitive and Affective Responses in Advertising, P. Cafferata, and A.M. Tybout, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989.
Meyers-Levy, J., and D. Maheswaran. “Exploring Differences in Males' and Females' Processing Strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research 18, 1 (1991): 63–70.Google Scholar
Murray, J.P., J.L. Lastovicka, and D. Bhalla. “Demographic and Lifestyle Selection Error in Mall Intercept Data.” Journal of Advertising Research 29, 1 (1989): 46–52.Google Scholar
National Telecommunication and Information Administration. “Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion,” August 2003: [URL: www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/falling.htm].
Nowell, C., and L.R. Stanley. “Length-Biased Sampling in Mall Intercept Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Research 28, 4 (1991): 475–79.Google Scholar
O'Donohue, S. “Attitudes to Advertising: A Review of British and American Research.” International Journal of Advertising 14, 3 (1995): 245–61.Google Scholar
Parks, M.R., and K. Floyd. “Making Friends in Cyberspace.” Journal of Communication 46, 1 (1996): 80–98.Google Scholar
Parsons, A., M. Zeisser, and R. Waitman. “Organizing Today for the Digital Marketing of Tomorrow.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 12, 1 (1998): 31–46.Google Scholar
Pastore, M. “Women Maintain Lead in Internet Use.” Cyberatlas, 2001: [URL: http://webdesign.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite].Google Scholar
PR Newswire. “Candlewood Suites Treat Guests to a $50 Amazon.com Shopping Spree for Booking Online,” January 22, 2003: [URL: http://www.prnewswire.com].
Ray, A. “Personalization is Vital for Response.” Marketing, May 29, 2003.Google Scholar
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, 1998: [URL: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu].
Ryman, R. “The Adverse Impact of Anti-Spam Companies.” The Computer & Internet Lawyer 20, 1 (2003): 15–19.Google Scholar
Schlosser, A.E., S. Shavitt, and A. Kanfer. “Survey of Internet Users' Attitudes toward Internet Advertising.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 13, 3 (1999): 34–54.Google Scholar
Shavitt, S., P. Lowrey, and J. Haefner. “Public Attitudes toward Advertising: More Favorable Than You Might Think.” Journal of Advertising Research 38, 4 (1998): 7–22.Google Scholar
Sheehan, K.B. “An Investigation of Gender Differences in Online Privacy Concerns and Resultant Behaviors.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 13, 4 (1999): 24–38.Google Scholar
Sheehan, K.B., and C. Doherty. “Re-weaving the Web: Integrating Print and Online Communication.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 15, 2 (2001): 47–59.Google Scholar
Spence, J.T., K. Deaux, and R.L. Helmreich. “Sex-Roles in Contemporary American Society.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, G. Lindzey, and E. Aronson, eds. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.
Steinberg, B., S. Vranica, and Y.J. Dreazen. “‘Do Not Call’ Registry is Pushing Telemarketers to Plan New Pitches.” Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2003.
Suri, R., and K.B. Monroe. “The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers' Judgements of Prices and Products.” Journal of Consumer Research 30, 1 (2003): 92–104.Google Scholar
Weiser, E.B. “Gender Differences in Internet Use Patterns and Internet Application Preferences: A Two Sample Comparison.” CyberPsychology and Behavior 3, 2 (2000): 167–78.Google Scholar
Witmer, D., and S. Katzman. “Online Smiles: Does Gender Make a Difference in the Use of Graphic Accents?” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication [on-line journal], 1997: [URL: http://www.ascuse.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/witmer1.html].Google Scholar
Wolin, L.D., and P. Korgaonkar. “Web Advertising: Gender Differences in Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior.” Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 13, 5 (2003): 375–85.Google Scholar